|
Copyright is never irrelevant. Fair use can only be decided by a court. It is a defence for copyright infringement and only ever comes into play if a copyright holder decides to sue. Its main purpose it to allow criticism or even parody of an original work and it is tested against a number of principles.
Most people assume that published material is only copyrighted if there is a copyright statement and/or that reproduction with citation does not violate copyright. Neither is true, although citing may serve to bolster a fair use defence.
Plagiarism, on the other hand, is a matter of ethics, not law, and rules on CP do not allow plagiarism.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what "never irrelevant" could possibly mean (applied to any subject), but generally you are right, I agree on all you say about copyright.
As to plagiarism, I don't think the difference is ethics vs law. It could be both, I think. The real thing is: plagiarism is has a narrow well-defined criterion: this is a untruthful statement (direct or indirect) about source of some result of creating work.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely agree. When I used the word "proper attribution", "proper" was important part. It means many things: truthful, clear, noticeable and apparent (nothing like "fine print", and so on.
I want to reiterate: we have so many apparent case of plagiarism reported lately. Let's kick of at least the apparent and shameless plagiarists first. Many account have been surviving way too long. 
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
The author must specifically indicate which sections of text are copied. For a normal author I would say to only do this a few times and to ensure the bulk of the article is your own words.
Lately to plagiarists I've been saying, "make sure it is 100% your own words," because otherwise they just don't seem to get it.
If you see copied text please feel free to report them or send me an email. I'll sort them out.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Sean!
I think this is a good guideline and leaves out all ambiguity.
Sean Ewington wrote: feel free to report them
Unfortunately have done that a lot lately. Needed to vent over here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
And is bad formated as well 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the one right below but also the same post in the Weird and Wonderful forum:
http://www.codeproject.com/Feature/WeirdAndWonderful.aspx?msg=4911473#xx4911473xx
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally consider such morons more dangerous for community than spammer.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, we do tolerate rude people here far too much.
Alberto Brandolini: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
|
|
|
|
|
We certainly do. Some people seem to think it's okay to be rude.
|
|
|
|
|
And an even greater number (I suspect) aren't terribly adept at realizing that they're acting in a manner considered rude in any given social setting.
I can honestly (and without a microgram of pride, yet kilograms of regret) say that I've been rude on purpose here at CP likely under 5 times. Two that come to mind immediately, there must be others.
I'd be dumbfounded if I'd not been deemed rude by others for comments a far greater number of times than I'd thought my behaviour anything other than fine.
As for the OP in this case - I told him that comments he left from time to time made me think of the word megalomaniac. ( [^]) Far from trying to be rude, it was my intention to be as direct as I perceived he to be. We're not what I'd call buddies, but I find the bashing of SAK by many quite amusing. Some are more articulate than most in their criticism, but generally I find myself thinking "toughen-up princess!"
Lots of people happy to bitch about him 'behind his back' as it were, in the lounge, but very few are prepared to tell him how they think it is. At least I know that between QA, the lounge and Code Horrors I'm guaranteed to get a stress-relieving laugh. 
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
|
|
|
|
|
I've given up telling him how rude he's been. It's like water off a ducks back to him and nothing I say has had any moderating effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough.
I think the 'water off a duck's back' quip is an important part of the equation. Some cultures tend to foster sycophancy, while others seem to encourage true independence and belief in oneself. In my experience, these two particular environments seem to produce individuals that often don't play nicely together.
When talking of immutable facts like the result of 2+2 or the number of countries on a continent, it's relatively easy to correct misconceptions. However, when talking of social situations, almost the entirety of what we know and how we behave is subject to opinion. Sure, group consensus is something we tend to respond to - but it only works when we're of the same opinion as the group or want something that it offers. Changing the opinion of someone that thinks that we are incorrect doesn't really happen. The fact that we're telling them that they're wrong and not them telling us, can even be interpreted as ourselves being the ruder of the two parties.
I dont offer an answer, opinion, or a defence or attack directed at anyone - merely a few random musings that I've had over the years.
Though, all that said - the original post in this thread did bring a smile to my face. Almost as much so as many of the follow-up comments.
|
|
|
|
|
I think there is such a thing as not seeing the apparent difference between criticism (even sarcastic) and offending a person, using plainly bad words addressed to a personality, not a particular idea, view or a work.
This is like bombing in reply to a diplomatic note. How a person supporting the party who is bombing look?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Nicely put SA. You're touching on just the issue that actually makes the attacks on your character amusing to me. Not that I think character attacks are in and of themselves funny, quite the contrary, in fact. I laugh with you, not at you..
The issue I have is the way that generally people criticize you in a manner that just seems plain offensive, rude and attacks the person (you) rather than the behaviour that others have an issue with. This is invariably echoed by other members, in a situation somewhat like college kids grouping together to attack a single individual. Generally, they will be at least one Ad Hominem attack in such a session.
This only serves to tell me more about the understanding that I and others have of ourselves and different personality types and cultures. In practise, it just gives me names to add to my list of people I wouldn't help if I were able. Refusing to work with people whom we dislike is often not a luxury afforded at work. In my spare time however, what I say goes,and I say those that support sending a bomb after an unwelcome diplomatic note aren't getting a thing from me.. (Oh, and to answer your question - they look like the other end of the pipe connected to my mouth)
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
|
|
|
|
|
enhzflep wrote: This only serves to tell me more about the understanding that I and others have of ourselves and different personality types and cultures
And thus we find beauty on the interwebs.
This is, by far, the most important thing for me when loitering online: to learn about others, to realise not everyone things as I do, to understand we come to places along different roads.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
 Yup, same for me too.
It's the contents of the comments in some sites I frequent that are far more interesting to me than the articles/videos which they accompany.
Physics World - I hardly bother with the comments, the articles are the meat. Loved this one this week: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/sep/23/nuclear-spins-control-electrical-currents[^] (OLEDs, memory chips and MRIs - all in a single device)
l******k - The opposite is generally true. The confrontingly candid nature of the replies and the ability to see who votes every comment up or down make for a really interesting study into human nature - both of others and of myself. Not sure if the NSFW and kid-sister rules apply here, so I wont identify the site or any contents. They're both easy to find anyway.
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
|
|
|
|
|
Ha-ha! As to the lexical side of the problem: years ago, we had a joke:
A book like "Mastering Microsoft Windows" was publishes with the classifier "Rated NC-17" (or "18+"). The question was: why?
The annotation reads: "Strong language".
—SASergey A Kryukov
modified 28-Sep-14 20:41pm.
|
|
|
|
|
That's just too funny. Thanks for the giggle.
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
|
|
|
|
|
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Good point, Chris.
I think you might be interested to read my parallel post below, entitled "Some big differences".
Especially in item #2 in the list, where I emphasize some formal approach (to obscene words).
Doesn't that make sense?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to be got wrong. I'm not the person who tends to "play offended card" (see also the "And finally… paragraph"). I am standing for the principles.
I think that particular saying, views and works can in fact be attacked. In the field of science, this is even the part of culture, and a part of general freedom of speech. But I would add to your points:
- Those "plain offensive, rude" attacks almost never contain any criticism at all. Have you noticed that? They just make no subject for discussion, except this forum. Likewise, criticism almost never uses bad words or personal characteristics, but can contain real sarcasm. It's like two different words meeting on the same page.
By the way: I read about a very similar notion from psychology: schizoid communication. - As to the cultures, in most cultures, there is strong isolation between rudeness and obscene language. That means, one can be very nice and use obscene language, and one can be very rude using plain language.
Interestingly, in my native country the obscene language is criminalized and can be a subject of a felony. Yet, obscene language is very popular, and lately (unfortunately) became popular in public speech. One would question: how would it possibly work? Simply: no one will practically touch the offender for that foul language, until this person actually also offends someone. And then, this offended person can exercise her/his right to sue the offender, which can be just the political, financial or a kind of public-relation gain act.
It could be nasty, could be fair or not, but can't you see it makes some practical sense: one single bad word may make you an outlaw. Either use foul language and be careful (which I would not recommend and would not like to see, ever, but this is about the formality), or stay away from certain words. Isn't that kind of fair?
And finally, I wonder how many people noticed that I readily responded to criticism (not matter how much sarcastic), said "thank you very much" and tried to improve myself, or stood for my point with arguments. Criticism, not offense. And I wonder how many people noticed many cases when I kept helping a person who just offended me if ones keep asking question (even in cases I reported wrong behavior, and not expecting apologies). To me, those are just different things. Everyone can see the facts except those who are blind.
(Above, the word "blind" is the sarcastic expression, referring such a rude document as the Bible, not attacking any particular person or a group; this is yet another exercise in distinguishing the rudeness. )
Overall, despite of a lot of unpleasant content, I think this is a very interesting discussion of a very interesting topic. I am grateful to everyone who responded, no matter in what way.
—SASergey A Kryukov
modified 26-Sep-14 15:20pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov wrote: I'm not the person who tends to "play offended card"
Agreed. You'd be the last person I though of when considering that behaviour.
Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov wrote: Those "plain offensive, rude" attacks almost never contain any criticism at all. Have you noticed that?
I have actually, yes. That's one of the reasons I find some discussions amusing and a reason to add persons to my do-not-help list. A criticism without addressable concerns isn't a criticism at all imho - it's merely an attack.
Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov wrote: Likewise, criticism almost never uses bad words or personal characteristics, but can contain real sarcasm.
Bingo! It's precisely the absence of these things that makes some criticism respectful and rewarding (even if uncomfortable) to receive.
Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov wrote: schizoid communication
Wow! There was an interesting couple of hours spent after I looked-up this phrase. Particularly the fact that some people will categorize this behaviour(schizoid) as someone holding back or remaining purposefully distant, while from the other side of the topic - these very same people could be said to be over-extending themselves. Yet another example why it's vitally important to take so many things into consideration when we try to uncover the intended meaning of any discussion. Much like the use of language - the use of a 'bad' word can be perfectly fine and 'polite', yet use of 'polite' language can at times be entirely unacceptable and can betray horrible ideas, thoughts and opinions. Understanding where someone is coming from is vital!
Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov wrote: And finally, I wonder how many people noticed that I readily responded to criticism (not matter how much sarcastic), said "thank you very much" and tried to improve myself, or stood for my point with arguments. Criticism, not offense.
No real way to tell, I guess. But I know I certainly have. There are things you and I have disagreed about, yet it's never felt like a waste of time or energy to present arguments which support one view or another - such discussions are invariably a rich source of knowledge and alternate viewpoints.
Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov wrote: Overall, despite of a lot of unpleasant content, I think this is a very interesting discussion of a very interesting topic. I am grateful to everyone who responded, no matter in what way.
I think you just 'won the internet' for today with that! Bravo Sir, bravo.
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
